Participation and sustainable development

21 

planning, but also as a tool for dealing with community differences in order to achieve social democracy.

Thus, it is important to note that ‘participation’ has many meanings as a “feel-good”

word, but “there are fundamental differences between participation as a means and/or an end”. Participation as a means is “information, consultation, even devolved decision-making, but with an instrumental objective”. But, participation as an end is “the fundamental acceptance of individual or group rights to self-govern” (Jenkins, 2007).

Besides, Burns and Heywood argue that “community participation is not the same as consultation”. “Many organizations say that they have a community participation strategy when they mean that they have a consultation strategy. Community participation’ means that communities are playing an active part and have a significant degree of power and influence” (Burns, et al., 2004 p. 2).

The researcher uses the concept ‘community participation’ as an end. This is to refer to the fundamental right to formal involvement of community groups in the decision-making process on the issues related to planning development proposals in their local area.

2.2.4 Participation and sustainable development

Sustainable development has become a ‘must present’ concept in contemporary planning theory, development studies and international development policy and practice. Development literature has viewed sustainable development to have three dimensions - social, environmental and economic (Campbell, 2003). The social dimension of the concept looks at social justice, economic opportunity, income equality and the provision of services among different social groups. It further concerns levels of social inclusion and exclusion as indicators of sustainable development. The economic dimension looks at issues of production, consumption distribution and innovation with the competitive market. Moreover, this dimension relates to access to adequate income and issues of poverty, while the environmental dimension focuses on natural resources, waste management and possible threats to nature in general (Campbell, 2003 pp. 437-438).

  22 

Another dimension has been added to the concept and this concerns the political area in society. This includes issues of administration and institutional capacity, “arguing that sustainability is reflected by the levels an organization is capable to function over the long term, providing services or assuming tasks that lie within its responsibility”

(Weber, 2007 p. 37, drawing from Romaya, et al., 2002 p. 4 and Edén, et al., 2000 pp.

260-261). The political dimension further includes issues of procedural equity, participation and public engagement in decision-making processes, arguing that participatory development leads to more sustainable outcomes (Weber, 2007, drawing from Kothari, 2001 and Rydin, 2003 p. 263). In this, and according to Folger et al (1995), “for a society to function effectively, it must keep its membership, engage in efficient and effective production, and sustain the well-being of its members”.

In agreement with this, it is recognised by the international development policies that

“good urban governance is characterized by the interdependent principles of sustainability, equity, efficiency, transparency and accountability, security, civic engagement and citizenship” (UN-HABITAT, 2008). Thus, the UN emphasises that

“participation is a fundamental prerequisite of sustainable development” (UN, 2011c).

Furthermore, UN development experts agree that a non-transparent, closed style of policy making “could threaten the consolidation of the new democracies of the developing world”. In contrast, “a more inclusionary approach involving, at a minimum, consultation with affected groups was thought to affect the sustainability of policies and improve the prospects for their design and implementation” (Bräutigam, 2004 p. 4).

This thesis uses the concept of sustainable development in a restrictive sense with emphasis on its political dimension which is conceptually introduced under

‘governance’ earlier. This is because this thesis is concerned with the ‘administration’

of urban development decision-making with focus on civil society participation in the process by providing an institutional analysis of urban land-use decision making that took place in the chosen case studies for this research. This is to identify the key society forces that dominate the decision-making and organisational structure of the process, in particular the institutional forms of civil society participation (mental models and organisational structure) that contribute to long term collaborative urban governance of sustainable urban land-use.

  23  2.2.5 Participation and power

The concept ‘power’ and its analysis has been a topic of debate in social sciences since the 1960s. The debate became even more complicated when ‘power’ was associated with ‘participation’ and the concept ‘empowerment’ was introduced. This is due to the idea that ‘participation’ provides ‘power’ to the powerless and enables them to realise their potential (Nelson, et al., 1995). Power is described as “access to resources, control of the elements and processes of production, and rights to dispose of products as experienced in face to face relations” within a wider and systematic economic relations.

“How people stand in relation to each other in these systems is described as power”.

Therefore, “power is a description of relations, not a ‘thing’ which people have”

(Nelson, et al., 1995 pp. 7-8).

Literature introduced three models of power – power to; power over; and power through (Jenkins, 2007; Nelson, et al., 1995). The model ‘power to’ suggests that “power can grow infinitely if you work at it, and growth of one person does not necessarily negatively affect another” (Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 8). Thus, power is a generative and transformative personal attribute which can be developed via capacity and knowledge building within social relations, where people undergo and exercise power (Hartsock, 1990). However, empowerment in this is understood as a “multi-dimensional social process that helps people gain control over their own lives. It is a process that fosters power in people for use in their own lives, their communities and in their society, by acting on issues they define as important” (Page, et al., 1999).

In contrast to the expression of growth used in the ‘power to’ model, ‘power over’

involves “gaining access to ‘political’ decision-making, often in public forums” where power is a ‘thing’ of “a finite amount in a closed system”. In this, gaining power would be at the expense of other (Jenkins, 2007; Nelson, et al., 1995). Power in this form was found in observable conflicts where one party dominated the other and made them do

“what they would not otherwise have done” (Dahl, 1961; Polsby, 1963; Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 9). Another image to express power in this model was found in invisible conflicts where “one party established barriers which prevented others from voicing their interests, let alone getting them on the agenda” (Bachrach, et al., 1970; Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 9). A third image of power in this model was to give the dominant party

  24 

interests a “god-given” nature where no alternative to the situation quo was possible (Lukes, 1974; Nelson, et al., 1995). ‘Power over’, therefore, expressed power to be coercive and centred in the governmental institutions. In this, empowerment happens when power is taken from one party to be given to another – i.e. the sum of power is always a “zero sum” (Jenkins, 2007; Nelson, et al., 1995).

The third model of power is ‘power through’. This refuted the idea of power as a subject that can be possessed and exercised by any party considered ‘powerful’

(Ferguson, 1990). Alternatively, power in this model is a “subjectless” element

“consisting of discourse, institutions, actors and a flow of events. These interact invisibly with a logic that is only apparent afterwards, to draw or tie in more and more relations within the ambit of the state” (Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 10). This model, therefore, suggests that systems work through a process of struggle which runs through a series of events and has unexpected outcomes (Nelson, et al., 1995).

Empowerment in this model depends on two things: power changes and power expands, but “always involves forms of dominance and subjection, albeit often accepted and sometimes negotiated” (Jenkins, 2007). In this, empowerment is the aim to find “more spaces of control” via changing attitudes and behaviour to alter power differentials in relationships (Giddens, 1984; Nelson, et al., 1995). Nonetheless, there is no end definition for the concept, as empowerment is a “construct shared by many disciplines and arenas¹⁵, and how empowerment is understood varies among these perspectives (Page, et al., 1999). Rapport (1984) noted that empowerment is easy to define by its absence but difficult to define in action, as it takes different forms in different contexts (Rapport, 1984).

Three attitudes to ‘empowerment’ can be identified. The first “does not entail necessary conflict and can be promoted in a top-down manner”. The second, however, always involves conflict and “can only be effective if derived from a bottom-up initiative”. The third attitude requires “understanding the prevalent power relations and how these can – and should – change” (Jenkins, 2007). This understanding of empowerment, however, raises an essential question of “how can empowerment be initiated by those who have

15 These include community development, psychology, education, economics and studies of social movements and organisations, among others (Page, et al., 1999).

  25 

‘power over’ others when “any notion of empowerment being given by one group to another hides an attempt to keep control?” (Rowlands, 1992 p. 52). In this, the potentially bottom-up concept of empowerment can be used to perpetuate and disguise continued top-down attitudes and approaches to gain control (Rowlands, 1992; Nelson, et al., 1995). Thus, this research attempted to analyse power relations within the Syrian context in order to highlight the possibilities for civil society empowerment for a more efficient participation process to take place.